Not sure if your "trolling" to have another cheap shot, but I will respond honestly with my thoughts.

From reading the Sports24 interview, the linked reporter seems to have taken some liberties.Professor Gerard Dine seemed more concerned with the whole organization of decision-makingpowers of the "anti-doping" process and stated they should be reviewed. He stated "I've always said that regulation should be under the guise of an independent sports authority, independent of economic power and independent of political powers. WADA which is ultimately a pharmacy organization, does not have the power to do that."The reference to the plasticiser (re:According to The New York Times and Lâ€™Equipe newspapers last October ... and that was a reference to a "disclosure" on a German TV program, which was never substantiated)in the interview, was an editor's note, and Professor Gerard Dine was not responding to that question.So once again, read between the lines, and it all becomes clear. Creative journalism, at it's best.Go read the Sports24 interview, then see how the "journo" at cyclingnews, selected a statement,added some editorial of his own... and come up with his own sensationalist article.It so transparent, and happening so often, and hasn't made one ounce of difference to the outcome.Will agree with Professor Gerard Dine that the whole organization and the "anti-doping" process has a lot of problems, including the analytical process... and the whole thing needs an overhaul.Threshold limits need to be set, on all banned substances, in the process... as I have already said.Just my opinion, DYOR.

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

The 68-year-old refused to be drawn on Alberto Contador, saying that a decision on the Spaniard's future rests with the Court of Arbitration for Sport should the UCI or World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) decide to appeal.

I should hope so....Sadly I have a feeling that this sport will Never be clean.I hope I'm proved wrong.

I was speaking to a work collegue that I used to compete with in water ski racing with and He was telling me that a competitor was just banned from the sport with EPO use and this is not a big budget sport for the skiers

Chuck wrote:Sorry to back track a little but can you post up the link that shows where the UCI have cleared Contador.

Yeah I'm not sure if they have either?

I get the UCI feed and don't recall any official announcement suggesting this.

Andrew

My fault - I used the term "UCI doping clearing committee" on the previous page, because that's what 90% of the hits on the net refer to it as, but it's an "OnionSports" satirical comment gone viral. It was the Spanish Federation that decided to clear him and the UCI is waiting to review the decision before appealing, and WADA is waiting to see what the UCI does.

And in news to hand today, WADA is saying there are lots of positive clen tests coming out of China due to what appears to be the use of Clen in meat production. Which of course means half the peleton whippets are going to shift their training base to China.

My reaction, with respect, has been well stated, if most people here bother to read what I have said (not selectively picking out parts, then emotively reponding with dis-information )

As I have already stated.Either or both/jointly, the UCI and WADA can appeal, though I doubt they will. The reason being that to appeal, they must show that the "anti-doping rules" have not been followed. The appeal has to be presented to the CAS.They must accept that appeal (if they think it is reasonable) and adjudicate, making the final decision.Till that happens Contador if free to race. I honestly don't think they have a case.And, all here must realise, Either or both/jointly, the UCI and WADA can appeal, and it can be dismissed The reasoning being- is there Clenbuterol in the EU meat production system? I think there is.As I have pointed out how a positive is produced, which is analysis, with a result, over a very high threshold limit.From the beginning, Contador's case revolves around the eating of meat containing clenbuterol, that has not wavered.Here's is a much better summary of what I have been saying all along, if many here read it, they may be better informed.http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-alberto-contadors-lawyer-explains-ban-uturn-2222669.htmlNow, naysayers will say "why not more positives"... well with some research, they will see, there is, more and more.As pointed out, only very few labs, can detect to such low levels, as in Contador's case, the window of retention is very short for clenbuterol, and very few athletes samples go to these specialised labs.DYOR

Last edited by brentono on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

brentono wrote:Now that Contador had been found not guilty by his federation and the UCI

Sorry to back track a little but can you post up the link that shows where the UCI have cleared Contador. This is all I could find re the UCI....

Sorry brentono perhaps I wasn't being clear when I posted "I'd like to hear his reaction". Yes your views on this whole case have been well documented, I was more referring to the above statement claiming that the UCI had cleared Contador.

At first I thought you had posted something deliberately misleading, but I then thought of how scathing you had been regarding the media's handling of this case so I decided that it was either an honest mistake or the truth. Add to this jules' link and then the exchange between Twizzle and jules (as alluded to by Twizzle above) and I have to admit to being a little thrown off. I thought it could be true but was wondering why it wasn't everywhere on the news and why people weren't posting about it on here as it would be a very big story in the cycling world.

That's why I reposted the question so that you could either withdraw your statement or confirm.In the meantime I decided to take you DYOR advice and went to the UCI's website, all I could find was the link that I then added to my post above.

brentono you have talked alot about detectable levels and thresholds. It's clear that you have a keen interest and have a very definite opinion on the matter, but with respect the rules here are clearly defined. As stated earlier in the thread....

[quote=]WADA has a zero-tolerance policy on clenbuterol.[/quote]

Maybe that's a debate for another thread

Also....

"The World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) code 2.2.1 states, â€œit is each Athleteâ€™s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athleteâ€™s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.â€

Whatever side of the fence you're on, he has a case to answer.

He stated that his defence will clear his name. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that he has fallen well short. He hasn't been able to show that the meat was tainted. No meat tested from the supplier had traces of clen, yet Contador was able to identify that source as the cause for his positive. How is he so sure ?

And how does one of the top athletes in the world, one of the best resourced, allow tainted meat to cross his plate. Every elite athlete in the world who falls under the jurisdiction of WADA knows that they are accountable for what goes into their body, they have to be so careful. Yet Contador specifically bypasses the local product to order in something from his homeland and this is how he is ensnared ?? Being a top athlete wouldn't he have checked ? Especially being a cyclist.

I want to believe in him, I have liked him. But his defence or lack there of raises questions and other possibilities. For me it's not inconceivable that the defence put forward was pre planned for a worst case scenario. Purchase the meat, keep the receipt, and if it hits the fan we'll claim food contamination and that no other team members consumed said meat. My opinion only.

No apology required, as at first I also had thought jules21 had your measure.

And you quieried me, taking what I had said, out of context, from my reply to Twizzle on the Li Fuyu case, that it is still pending the Contador case. And there was any number you could have quieried.

There seems to have been a misunderstanding. You posted "I'd like to hear his reaction". Well it think it is pretty well documented in my last reply to you how I see any appeal (if there even is one) against Contador playing out.Now we will just have to, wait and see.Just about said all I need to say on the subject. Probably way Too much. (as I think many here aren't really interested, only interested in making further confusion)That's No reflection on you Chuck.

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

"The [anti-doping] legislation states that a rider is responsible for any banned substance in his body," Ramos says. "But there's a clause that frees him of that responsibility if he can demonstrate there was no intentional negligence. We proved that, and that was the key to his defence. From day one his defence was based around that clause."

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

Chuck wrote:He stated that his defence will clear his name. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that he has fallen well short. He hasn't been able to show that the meat was tainted. No meat tested from the supplier had traces of clen, yet Contador was able to identify that source as the cause for his positive. How is he so sure ?

i agree. lance once tested positive for corticosteroids. his doctor (the same one who would likely have been complicit in any doping he was undertaking) produced a prescription to explain that it was to treat a saddle sore. it could have been an oversight - a staggering one, given that it is almost inconceivable the doctor wouldn't have known to clear it with the UCI first - or, maybe the writing of a retrospective prescription was a pre-determined (or on-the-fly) strategy for a positive test (my guess).

there's always a 'clever' excuse at the ready for a positive test. depending on the substance, some of the excuses are laughable. contador's and lance's positives lent themselves to relatively believable excuses, but as you said, how would contador have known the steak was to blame? he couldn't have. an honest answer, if he wasn't doping, would have been "i didn't dope, so i can't explain where the clen came from." of course that wouldn't have been an effective defence, so he had to make something up. that doesn't mean he's guilty - maybe he really didn't dope and fabricated the steak excuse as his best defence (ends justifying the means), but either way, the steak excuse appears to be BS.

But Ramos says there was plenty of indirect evidence that helped to clear Contador. "We showed that the testing for clenbuterol in cattle is not infallible in Europe," he says. "There is a European Union norm â€“ 96/23/CE, dating from 1996 â€“ which states that only 0.25 per cent of cattle should be tested for clenbuterol. So 99.75 per cent are not.

"During the very same period the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture says that there have been no positives for clenbuterol in [Spanish] cattle. But we've shown that the police have gone on arresting people for using clenbuterol and other banned substances in their livestock." As for the offending cow itself, "The Basque Government gave us three possibilities, and curiously enough, the owner of the one that was most likely to be it is in partnership with his brother, who was penalised a few years back for using clenbuterol.

"So when WADA [the World Anti-Doping Authority] says it is impossible that the banned substance clenbuterol could be found in Spanish cattle, that's like saying, â€˜Cocaine is banned, end of story'."

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

brentono, all that does is raise doubt over the possibility that the steak may have been contaminated with clen. that's a long way short of the proof needed to clear contador. the spanish ruling appears to be in direction contravention of the UCI doping rules.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.